Chiiloquin ranger district




НазваниеChiiloquin ranger district
страница3/14
Дата28.02.2013
Размер2.84 Mb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

* ISWV on %N *1d. a M "

DOCKNEY ORP4ANS CRYSTAL


tow %PP ~19g1IPF *.caLUP EMR2PP EMR 'tE%

E O .i PP%

Whk. FWr Promusion

- i -. T allX

Wo IFbpruormai

Wd. u.

so U ..................

.

Lu


Lu

X* 4..

L . II

20-

..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .


: ..... ... . .. .. ... ..... .. . . . .. .. . . .... .. . ....


10~

Z,........ ... ... ......--


20 .... --.. . IL ... . .. .


Ltaugh 01 'n 5 Wm

[SOUT ROCK SUSTATlU I B


OM*S Q SW 1S* FR E Cco %CW 1i CW % El PMR FR %

20

C . .. ....

1

'ROUT CK COPPERFIELD CLEY HEADWAlE

DOCKNEY ORPHANS CRYSTAL


5 3'lF lMIM A SF u Us h oCAFIS

The previous display is useful when considered at the watershed scale (to show relative trends and

conditions), but its reliability is low at the absolute level or within small areas. Each data set measured

different parameters and quantified them using different standards. The following information is offered

to help the reader understand the differences. (See Appendix I, Additional Graphs and Charts, for bar

graphs comparing the different standards.)

1920 Cruise

Unit of Measure: Scribner volume by species from Klamath Volume Table. For this analysis, volume

was summarized by section. Conversion to trees per acre done using the same volume table.

Scale of Accuracy: Good as far as total volume per section, but no deductions for non-forest land lowers

the volume/acre estimates in sections where non-forest lands are significant.

Method: 10% cruise, mostly I ch. in 10 ch. strip cruise. DBH measured with a biltmore stick, or taped

if over 36" DBH.

SOS Watershed Assessment 17


1945 Inventory

Unit of Measure. Species class and stocking levels. The stocking levels are as a percent of an undefined

stocking standard Looking at the volumes from 1920 and considering that the "cut" acres have had a

60% harvest within the last 20 years, the standard appears to be low compared to current.

Scale of Accuracy Not quantifiable in an absolute sense. Good relative accuracy.

Method: Unknowh

Ecoclass (1979)

Method: Aerial Photo interpretation with field verification. Generally typed at greater than 10 acres, but

not quantified. This system places great emphasis on current existing vegetation occurrence, and

provides a good picture of the pine to fir progression. A hint of how future progressions may go can also

be derived from this system's data display.

R2 map (1986)

Method: Interpretation from satellite imagery at 22 acre pixels, classed as to type (PP, CW, etc...), and

mature, immature, poles, seeds/saps and plantations.

PMR (1988)

Method: Satellite imagery, computer classified in 25 meter pixels. The data was re-sampled to 90 meter

pixels for this analysis.

Scale of Accuracy: Ground verified.


Riparian Areas (These are the most susceptible to impacts from grazing.)

Hardwood Communities

Reference era conditions prior to 1900: Most hardwood communities were in good condition, with very

little livestock impact. The systems cycled through most catastrophic events (major storms and fires)

without suffering major impacts. The primary users were beaver, big game, insects, and neotropical

birds.

Indicators of hardwood communities in good condition:

Plants: Willow or aspen (all growth stages), tufted hairgrass, and sedges (beaks, aquatic, inflated).

Soils: Friable, no pedestaling, no compaction, no puddling, no channelization.

Forage Use: 30% or less of current year's growth (light use).

Channel Conditions: Narrow, deep, but not entrenched; no headcuts, no channel widening, minimal

bank exposure.

Community Functions: Filter, stabilize associated stream channels.

SOS Watershed Assessment 18


Hardwood community in

good condition, Butler

Creek drainage.


Indicators of hardwood communities at risk:

Plants: Lack of young plants. More dead material in hardwoods. Upland conifer invasion. Browse

lines on older plants. More Increaser grasses and forbs (Kentucky bluegrass, Mat Muhly, Arnica,

Rosy Pussy-toes, Potentilla sp.).

Soils: Compaction evident. Some displacement and movement, loss of litter. Puddling and pedastaling

becoming evident.

Forage Use: Utilization more than 30% cn hardwoods. Loss of leaders and leaves below 4 feet

(browse line). Utilization more than 40% on palatable grasses/sedges/forbs. Young hardwoods

hedged.

Channel Conditions: Channel may be entrenched or headcut. Channel widening becoming evident on

over 10% of stream reach inspected. Evidence of exposed banks on more than 10% of stream reach

being inspected.

Hardwood community at

risk, also in Butler Creek

drainage.

SOS Watershed Assessment 19


Indicators of hardwood communities in poor condition:

Plants: Only skeletons of hardwood plants present. Increaser grasses/forbs dominant. (K. bluegrass,

Mat Muhly, longstalk clover, Potentilla, larkspur,etc). Conifer/upland shrub invasion to stream

channel. No litter present.

Soils: Soil compaction moderate to severe. Soil displacement obvious, bare soil exposed between

plants. Pedastaling and puddling extensive.

Forage Use: Forage utilization has exceeded 60%.

Channel Conditions: Channel degraded, depth greater than 5 ft., width greater than 5 ft. Bedrock

exposure common. Active headcuts deeper than I ft:, moving every year. Sediment load greater than

stream's ability to carry, evidenced by deposition areas in channel.

Hardwood community in poor condition, Butler Creek drainage.

Meadow Communities

Indicators of meadows in good condition (Reference Era):

Plants: Native grasses/sedges dominant (Tufted hairgrass, cusick's blue-grass, beaked sedge, inflated

sedge, etc...). Increasers may be present, but less than 10%/o species composition. Good litter layer

between plants.

Soils: Compaction minimal. No evidence of displacement, puddling, or pedastaling. Very little bare

soil exposure between plants.

SOS Watershed Assessment 20


Forage Use Forage Utilization light - less than 40%, or if used heavier, area is given extended rest for

at least one grazing season.

Community Functions: Filters for overland water flows, trapping sediments, reservoirs for long- term

water storage in the watershed.

Meadow in good condition, Trout Creek Ranch

Indicators of meadows in fair or poor condition (at risk):

Plants: Increaser plants dominant (Kentucky bluegrass, mat muhly, cinquefoil, longstalk clover, rosy

pussytoes, etc.). Native plants make up less than 30% of species composition. Upland conifers/brush

invading. Little or no litter layer. Shallow rooting depth.

Soils: Compaction, puddling, pedestaling prevalent. Water table dropping. Bare soil extensive between

plants.

Forage Use: Use exceeds 50%, either from past grazing or by plant and soil condition.

Community Function: Meadows are losing their ability to function as filters and storage reservoirs.

Where at one time they may have stored water throughout the summer until August, they now only

store until the end of June, or mid-July.

SOS Watershed Assessment 21


- _'o',

Ri ":1-1

;_4 #1'y'N

f_,

- R

..' _ IN

Wrights Meadow, fair to poor condifion (at risk).

The following photographs portray examples of areas which the team feels are beyond at-risk, and are not

fuinctioning properly.

Dams Meadow: Deeply incised, broad channel. Water table well below root zone for major portion of

community. Note that new flood plain is forming, and vegetation is establishing on channel bottom.

SOS Watershed Assessment 22


Copperfield Draw: Deeply incised, broad channel. Water table well below the historic flood plain, which

has dried out to the point that sagebrush is becoming established. New flood plain has been formed

within the channel, and vegetation is establishing on the channel bottom.


Management Activities that have Influenced Decline of Riparian Communities

BIA Management

1920's - Fire suppression becomes more dominant in management activities.

1920 to 1940- Major timber harvesting; road and railroad systems developed more access to, and use of,

hardwood and meadow communities.

1920 to 1930's -Stocking of reservation with non -indian domestic livestock to generate income for the

Klamath Tribes.

1930 grazing season: Six months to year-long; sheep, cows, and horses.

Year-to-year use of same plants.

SOS Watershed Assessment 23


The figure at left shows the

amount and type of grazing from

1930-1994.

aoo Sheep use reduced to 1000 head

prior to FS administration.

Cattle are the primary livestock

using the assessment area at the

1000 present time.

- 0O . Number of horses estimated at

Iw30 1966 1900 1o0 10a 1,000 head (1930).


Early and late use further influenced decline of riparian cc- -unities:

Early use contributed to soil displacement and compaction.

Late grazing pressure removed and/or reduced young reproduction.

Foraging on new growth reduced native riparian plants' ability to maintain themselves (willow,

aspen, Cusick's bluegrass).

Competition increases between riparian obligate species and livestock (beaver vs. livestock).

1930 Grazing report identified unauthorized livestock use occurring on the reservation - especially where

reservation lands join private lands.

Agricultural land development.

Willows and hardwoods removed to expand pasture lands:

1920's -1930's - Major dike construction along the Sprague River for flood control.

Introduction of non-native forage plants began after 1930. (1930 Grazing Report documented

shortage of winter feed for Indian-owned livestock. It is thought that the BIA's intent was to

introduce better forage grasses.)

Range Improvements: During the late 1920's through the 1930's:

Many springs and stock ponds were developed.

Stream channels diverted.

Results:

Headcutting and destabilization of stream channels initiated.

SOS Watershed Assessment 24


Lowering of watertables.

Loss of new recruitment in willows and aspen.


Decrease in native sedges and grasses.

Loss of native riparian communities.

Loss of fisheries and other wildlife.


The figure at right shows head

months per year from 1930 to

1994. Notice that total grazing --

impacts have been reduced 300 -'

within the watershed. The graph 25 o -I

assumes the following: 20,O -

5 Sheep = 1 Headmonth 1 -

1 Cow/calf = 1 Headmonth

1 Horse = 2 Headmonths ' _


1930 1906 1980 19S0 1994

Yea


Forest Service Management (1961 to Present)

Allotments are set up on deferred rotation.

Unauthorized livestock use is still a problem along FS property boundaries.

Lack of controls (fencing, herding) contributes to livestock returning to previously grazed areas.

Livestock still use roads into remnant hardwood communities, even though some roads and access points

are closed.

Road density increases with new construction.

Water sources remain a problem on allotments.


Stock ponds in wet meadows.

Stock ponds in hardwood communities (late 60's through mid-70's).

Results:

Some remnant hardwoods are still present on Trout Creek Ranch and Wrights Meadow.

SOS Watershed Assessment 25


Continued decline of ripanan communities on some active allotments

Continued degradation of some stream channels, lowering of water tables

Lower ability of hardwoods to reproduce, and reproduction to survive.

Water developments in meadows tend to concentrate livestock either in or near hardwood communities.

Soil compaction and increased grazing pressure during late summer, early fall.


The chart at left illustrates how the average

length.of grazing seasons within the

watershed has been reduced.


4 . , 1; | Through the mid- 1980s, grazing still occuring

3 / l ain hardwood communities after August.


lia I s Im logo 1i4

Yew


In the late 1970's, the FS began acquiring private holdings through land exchanges and purchases. These

lands were previously used for agriculture and/or timber production. Most of these lands were

incorporated into existing grazing allotments and/or timber producing lands. The lands used for livestock

production were either grazed year-long or season-long, depending on the previous owners.

Timber companies conducted varying degrees of timber harvest prior to exchanging lands with the Forest

Service. A total of 4,500 acres have been acquired within the analysis area through 1993 (see Appendix

J, Lands Acquired by Forest Service Through

Exchange or Purchase).


5000


Present Production Acres are those acres 4000

still dedicated to either timber and/or C -

forage production. <

8 2000

Past Production Acres are the lands used

prior to Forest Service acquisition. 1000

0

Production Acres


Pres. ProdAc. * PastProd. Ac.

SOS Watershed Assessment 26


The Forest Service has attempted to correct headcuts and repair channels in Wright's Meadow,

Copperfield Draw, Trout Creek Ranch, and No Name Flat. These efforts tended to temporarily slow

erosion processes. In some places the water either cut around the end of the structure, started new

downcuts, or the channel appears to have widened. The channels have not been restored, and the water

table has not returned to historic levels. Ponded water behind the improvement structures also becomes a

livestock water source during dry periods.

From the 1980's to the present, the livestock industry experienced major economic fluctuations which

forced many operations out of business. Such economic factors, coupled with the recent drought, have

resulted in fewer livestock grazing public lands for shorter grazing seasons.

Many documents describe the effects of livestock grazing on riparian plant communities and channel

conditions. One of the best is Managing Fisheries and Wildlife on Rangelands Grazed by Livestock

(Dec, 1990) by William S. Platts. This reference covers most encountered situations, and offers

numerous management strategies fbr mitigating livestock impacts on sensitive areas. Costs associated

with improvements and/or management requirements are also identified. Such costs can run from little to

extreme, and should be weighed when doing any improvement project planning. (See Appendix K,

Grazing Sytems Effects on Vegetation and Hydrologic Function for effects and costs associated with

different types of livestock grazing systems.)

Achieving the desired objectives for the watershed by utilizing grazing systems depends on sound

judgement and knowledge of the watershed. How grazing affects plant communities depends on the

permittees' ability to manage their livestock, and the administrative capabilities of the district to deal with

on-ground situations.


Mahogany Types

Mahogany was more prevalent in the reference period. Currently, this type is represented by older age

classes of poor vigor, with little evidence of reproduction. Conifer encroachment and fire suppression

may be the cause, but this theory has not been proven.


Non-forested Types

The non-tree component would favor annual and perennial grasses and forbs compatible with frequent,

light ground fires. Sedges, ceanothus and grasses would have been good candidate species to have

occupied this growing space, but there is no information to confirm this. Shrub species would be present,

generally small and woody.


Areas Considered to Be Understocked

Approximately five percent of the SOS area is in an understocked condition, primarily as a result of

wildfires. Most of this acreage has been recently planted and is not truly understocked, but stocked with

young seedlings.

SOS Watershed Assessment 27


3. What Are the Current and Reference Era Risks of Stand Replacement Events

from Fire, Insects, or Disease?

A. How do the current and reference era risks of stand replacement events differ?

Reference Era Conditions

Stand replacement events were closely tied to fire regimes for specific forest plant communities. There

are three plant communities within the South of Sprague watershed that exhibited distinct fire regimes:

Ponderosa pine (over 90% of the watershed); white fir-dominated mixed conifer (less than 4 % of the

watershed), and- subalpine.lodgepole-white fir (less than 5% of the watershed).

The ponderosa pine communities fire regime can be characterized as frequent, low intensity/severity

wildfire.. Fire burned through the equivalent of the entire community every 5-15 years,' consuming

surface litter and portions of downed logs. Most understory tree regeneration was killed, while shrubs,

perennial forbs, and grasses (which regenerate from root crowns or subsurface perennating organs) was

often only top-killed . Only where other mortality agents had worked did the fire torch out small groups

of trees. Such "stand replacement" events were very small, usually encompassing 1/2 acre or less.

Larger stand replacement events have occurred in this forest community in other watersheds in the

Klamath Basin (several hundred acres near the Upper Klamath Marsh early in this century). However,

these larger events were so infrequent that they cannot be characterized as recurring events or aspects of

a fire regime.

The fire regime for white fir-dominated mixed conifer communities can be characterized as frequent, low

intensity/severity wildfire, punctuated by occasional, small-patch stand replacement events. Frequency of

wildfire in these communities has been measured at about 10-50 years. Intensity/severity varied directly

with frequency. As the interval between fires increased, the fire intensity/severity increased. Much of this

forest community was maintained in an old-growth dominated overstory with a young shrub, perennial

grass, and forb understory. The scattered stand replacement patches were mostly less than 50 acres.

The fire regime of the subalpine lodgepole-white fir community is characterized as infrequent, high

intensity/severity wildfire. Fire frequency was 100-500 years. These fires were stand replacement events

that were limited in size (usually less than 100 acres) to the extent of the vegetated area and topographic

features. Within the perimeter of these fires, patches of lightly burned or unburned trees remained due to

the discontinuous nature of fuels in this forest community.

Bark beetle epidemics had a periodicity of 50-80 years. These would reduce stands to lower stocking

levels, but would not replace stands.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

Похожие:

Chiiloquin ranger district iconSu bwatersheds chiloquin Ranger District Winema National Forest

Chiiloquin ranger district iconAps district high school health curriculum framework c ourse Title: P. O. W. E. R. – Philosophy of Wellness that Enriches Relationships District Course Number: 063TF

Chiiloquin ranger district iconOn Appeal From a Judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division September 24, 2002 *

Chiiloquin ranger district iconI. stature, purpose, and adoption and revision of procedures: Official procedures of District 55, as adopted from time to time by the District Council, are set

Chiiloquin ranger district iconLake George and Seminole Ranger Districts

Chiiloquin ranger district iconDistrict 41 Directory

Chiiloquin ranger district iconHistory of the Third Masonic District

Chiiloquin ranger district icon1 in the united states district court

Chiiloquin ranger district iconStandard for district success 1: curriculum

Chiiloquin ranger district iconRiverside Community College District

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница